Why is solar variability blamed for other planets warming?

This nonsense started a few years ago out of several of the deniers sites, based loosely on some real scientific research, to make it sound more convincing but they conveniently leave out the references to this not being related to the Sun

, like this on Pluto which dates back to 2002

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html

(paragraph 5 comments by Jay Pasachoff, an astronomy professor)

Bob326: sigh, it is actually deniers that try to claim this about tiny changes like the 0.0038 figure, for co2 in the atmosphere figure. When 98% of the atmosphere has no effect on warming and the contribution of co2 is a minimum of 9% in this remaining 2% and co2, since the start of the industrial age, has risen 35% - these are not tiny amounts.

It's not. However, rumors are running wild on the internet, but, there are logical explanations for changes seen of Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and even little Triton, and none of these explanations have anything to do with Solar output.

People want to blame global warming on the sun, so they try to find anecdotal evidence that the sun is the cause. They'll usually find an article with big headlines that says that some other planet is warming. Without reading that article to see what the astronomers have to say, they will then assume that the sun must be the cause.

Orbital changes, called Milankovitch cycles, are likely the cause of any climate change seen on Mars.[1] The Milankovitch cycles are also likely responsible for the beginning of ice ages and interglacial periods here on Earth as well.

There is no evidence that Jupiter is experiencing "global warming". What there is, are evidence of warm spots on Jupiter, or rising storms. This is as likely to be local events as to be a global event. Also, Jupiter produces its own internal heat which affects climate more than any forcing from the sun. Climate on Jupiter is poorly understood, but this should not be used to deny climate change on Earth.[2]

Triton is approaching its extreme southern summer. It does this every few hundred years. This vaporizes surface nitrogen, which increase atmospheric pressure. It is increased atmospheric pressure that is warming Triton.[3]

Pluto reached perihelion, the closest point in its elliptical orbit to the Sun in 1989, and is now moving further way.[2]

"Even the 11 year solar cycle is actually a tiny change going from 1365.5W/m2 at minimum to 1366.5W/m2 at maximum, this is a change of ~0.7%"

You proponents are always arguing about small things making a big difference (like CO2), so the amount the sun changes shouldn't really be an argument from you guys.

Anyhow, the direct influences of the sun, like TSI, can't really account for huge changes in temperature, but the indirect influences--to air currents, hydro cycle, ocean currents, and other things that may influence climate on Earth and/or other planets--may effect temperatures in ways we do not understand.

And of course, temperatures, at least on Earth (likely for other planets to some extent as well), take up to centuries to reach equilibrium with heightened levels of solar activity. So those unusually high levels of solar activity we saw in the 50s (per Solanki), and continue to see today, will continue to create a radiative imbalance here on Earth--and likely on other planets as well-- for decades to centuries to come.

------

Edit:

Antarcticice:

"Bob326: sigh, it is actually deniers that try to claim this about tiny changes like the "

Sigh, CO2 is a small part of the atmosphere. Does that mean I do not think it can cause warming? No. My point was that just because the amount is small, it does not mean that it cannot make big changes. That remains true.

Anyway, the argument that the changes from solar minimum to solar maximum are too small to make a big difference is irrelevant to whether or not the sun can cause major climatic shifts, which is what the asker of this question was getting at.

The Sun produces more than just the wavelengths classified as "irradiance". Man's understanding is so limited at this point, all we can show is a correlation between solar cycles and climate change...but it's enough to shed serious doubt on the CO2/man-made global warming correlation.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28...

Edit: What are you talking about?? I used the same source you did...and I've never bashed Wiki as the starting point of any search for knowledge (just don't end your search there). Given this is the first time I've answered a question you've posed, and the nature of question you've asked...are you the Harry Mime reincarnate?

It's only blamed by people who don't understand the science and are looking for something to blame other than humans. What's an obvious possible cause lf global warming? The Sun.

Because man-made global warming requires a pretty radical change in the way we do things (i.e. ending our addiction to oil), some people are very resistant. Especially people who are politically conservative and deathly afraid of taxes and government intervention. These people simply don't care about the science. They don't understand it (usually not because they can't, but rather because they don't want to). You can explain to them that total solar irradiance hasn't increased in 30 years, that we know this for sure because it's been monitored by satellites the whole time, but they'll still never admit that the Sun isn't to blame.

Most people do not even realize that other planets have an orbital period different from the terrestrial year.

Good point. Correlation does not prove causality, which is the same problem I have with AGW theories. Especially, when the models are tweaked every year to fit the new data.

The sun could go super nova and the global warming nazis would still blame CO2 for the warming.